|
corysub -> RE: On What Basis Will You Choose? (10/26/2008 8:44:49 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BlackPhx
Ok, for the most part I let my wife do most of the postings and to her credit she most eloquently has defended her position. Now she has asked me to express my political position and share the reasoning for my decision.
First I have done a lot of checking at factscheck.org. I understand propaganda and the need for demonizing the opposition to win over the popular vote to select the electors. I also understand the presidential canidates even if elected can not enact a lot of thier policies without the aide of congress. With that in mind there is a lot both canidates have in common.
The idea that using tax policies to redistribute wealth has become labeled as "socialism". In that regard both candidates are socialist, one advocating directly taxing the wealthy to provide tax cuts to less wealthy and the other advocating tax cuts for the wealthy and indirectly taxing the masses to pay for it. In both cases there is a redistribution of wealth and in both case each candidate swears that it will "create" jobs and in both case each is right in a fashion.
Both, candidates advocate an aggressive foreign policy in the middle east, one in finishing the war in Iraq the other in more aggressive action in Afghanistan. Both, candidates are big government, big spending candidates and neither was entirely clear on how they were going to balance the budget, though both have some ideas that will help a little. The energy plans for both are almost identical except one emphasizes alternative energy while the other emphasizes in drilling for oil.
Both candidates have engaged in negative ads, Obama in the largest amount of negative ads ever ran by a campaign, and in McCain who has ran a 85% negative campaign to date (again fact check.org) Both are fear mongers saying vote for me or you will be worse off. Both parties are Americans who believe they are following in the tradition of our forefathers and espousing the ideal and values of our society. Both, supported the 700 billion dollar bailout that almost guarantees big banks will buy out the smaller ones for a fraction of the assets value.
Both candidates espouse tax cuts for business. Both, health care plans are good and if they combined both it would be a knock out. And while McCain will tax the benefits, it would not include payroll taxes (Medicare/SSI taxes are not included) and the $5,000 will benefit 90% of the Americans ($12,000 is a projected number most experts says is a wild out there number). While Obama's clamp down on the unregulated raping of medicare by the insurance companies who in their annual reports proudly declared how they have boosted revenues, while denying claims, in essence making people pay for protection they are not getting and using laws to force people to pay. Also, allowing people to buy insurance from the public insurance pool will allow people to get insurance who could not get it otherwise. Both good plans that would work really well together.
A "terrorist" is someone that uses violence, fear and intimidation to achieve political ends. Both parties have extremist that fit the bill and if we held all the candidates accountable for the actions of these individuals due to their association then NO candidate would be fit for office so I discount it. Likewise selfish people fill and support both parties including both ACORN and FREDDIE/FANNIE again if I held both candidates accountable by these associations then again NO candidate would be fit for office.
Both candidates espouse a government as "Big daddy" role. McCain: government will protect you from terrorist, big bad foreign baddies, street criminals, and leftists whose beliefs will deteriorate our traditional American conservative values. Obama: government that will protect you from terrorists, domestic baddies, corporate criminals, and rightist who's beliefs will deteriorate our traditional American liberal values. Both candidates have clearly stated there are problems that can not be solved by government, again one focus this ideology on the economy issues (McCain) while the other focuses it on society issues (Obama) to apply this on. Frankly, with so many similarities it made the decision very difficult. As I see it most of their plans are not mutually exclusive and if the election is as tight as it appears it is going to be then we should take the best of both plans and do BOTH.
One can not create jobs with supply side economic incentives if the market demand does not supports it, we gave huge tax cuts to the oil industry in forgiveness in fines, royalties, fees, and direct tax cuts in the last 4 energy bills but until oil reached above $80 a barrel there was not enough demand to go after oil that cost $90 a barrel to produce. Worse, we gave tax cuts across the board to companies in the last 8 years on the Hope that the companies would use it to expand business in the US and produce jobs for Americans and we were rewarded with having our jobs shipped to India, China and Mexico. We gave tax cuts to the investor class in hopes they would put their money in business in the United States, instead they invested in the "hot" economies of Europe, China, Russia and India building their counties with American dollars. Most, investments are also in the "stock market" a secondary swapping institution that only occasionally raises capital for companies through IPO's or secondary stock offerings. End result of these tax cuts, inflated prices of stocks, and shipping foreign capital to create business in other lands, over all a failed plan that has "hurt" America economically.
We have over the last 8 years flooded the system with debt to pay for a conflict that "should" have been over 4 years ago according to one of my coworkers who served 3 years in Iraq because of mismanagement of the Administration and Congress. The reasons for the war in the Iraq was contrived made to fit the threat of the time to fulfill political favors. A cost that has diminished our military so when our ally Georgia was attacked we were unable to respond with any credibility (Also note if you keep up with pop sci articles, this was a electronic war game to test the Russia's cyber combat division). It makes John Kerry s words 4 years ago appear prophetic, mistakes have been made in the past 8 years and that has had large negative effect on our economy, our military strength, our prestige, and our belief in our government.
McCain has not in any way taken any steps in his campaign to realize or speak about what these mistakes were on a national level (though to give credit McCain and Biden both in 2004 worked together to change policy in Iraq so we could win that conflict today though not because of the surge). I do not agree with all of the policies of Obama, I am steadfastly opposed to raising the minimum wage (unless there is an investment requirement). I am also opposed to gun control as I believe an armed society keeps government an honest servant of the people. I am opposed to tax cuts for the masses (unless there is an investment requirement). But, overall Obama appears to be a more rational, more adaptable, and more flexible problem solver then McCain. He demonstrated it in the campaign management of resources, mobilization of people, mobilization of ideas, and humility and common bond with a vast majority of the American public. All this shows a far greater leadership ability then McCain has thus far been able to muster both in his party and in the nation as a whole.
Sincerely,
BlackPhx
edited for typose
Appreciate your thoughtful essay. There are a few points made that I would disagree with, however. I fail to see how giving the rich (which Obama defines as income and not assets) is an indirect tax on others to pay for it? Pay for what....the loss of dollars to the government to be spent how politicians feel is what we need, or dollars to be spent by people that they feel will produce the most productive return, create businesses, jobs, demand for services, and more.
Both candidates have generated negative ads, I would agree. McCain lost traction early on in this race because he underestimated Obama reverting to basic Chicago poltical machinations and tried to take the "high road"...while he was being blasted by the democrat machine. Negative ads by McCain probably include attacks on Obama's association with far left radicals and I guess it depends on one's perspective if that is negative or "enlightening".
As far as energy plans, the words are the same but the focus is a lot different. Drilling now and utilizing clean coal technology as McCain suggests would give us the time needed to work on the development of alternative energy to fossil fuels, to get our non existent nuclear plant building program back on track which will take years, work on solar and wind possibilities and build the required infrastructure to deliever energy, so as not to repeat the stupidity of the failed ethanol mandated program from Washington. Ethanol is the perfect example of how stupid legislators can be as the best case, and how they are willing to sacrifice the future of the country to special interests..read farmers.
As far as "big daddy" government from both candidates..my opinion would be that Obama's "whose your daddy" question would be answered with total control by the government over our healthcare system, a vast new welfare program of wealth re-distribution sending a check to people who don't pay taxes and taking that money from those of us who do. I haven't run a screen on factcheck but last I saw the government doesn't have any money to give anyone...it either takes it from those who are productive or borrows the money and puts the burden of repayment on those who are productive in the economy. I agree with you that McCain is focused on terrorists and other baddies, as you say, as well as criminals white collar or no collar criminals. Isn't that the job of government? Isn't it the responsibility of government to protect its people and its liberty?
As far as oil...the environmentalists have taken over the agenda for decades. Oil companies are not allowed to drill in areas offshore and onshore in areas that seismology suggests would be very prone to proving reserves of oil and gas. Lots of infil drilling is being done and some important discoveries in the north west have been made, but vast areas remain unexplored. Shale offers another possibility although the use of nuclear bombs to give access to tight gas reserves in shale is not going to happen again.
Why would companies want to build plants outside the United States and lengthen the logistics of transporting raw materials to those plants and finished products back to markets in the United States? Would seem stupid until you realize that the corporate tax rates are much lower in Europe than the United States and run around 11% in Ireleand I believe versus 35% domestically. Labor is also cheaper and doesn't have the stranglehold of unions in some areas that drove industry first from the northern states, than to the southern states, than to Mexico and Latin America, and now to China! We used to have a vibrant clothing manufacturing business in this country, an industry that created millions of entry level jobs for the poor, but they are mostly shriveled up and gone..like raisens in the sun. And they are not coming back!
No questions about the war are interesting...we won the war but lost the peace. Shit happens sometimes that you don't plan on...Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld did not plan for peace in Iraq, disolving the Iraqi army was, in hindsight, a big mistake, and all law and order broke down creating a vacuum for militia to form and prosper, vendetta's to take place, outside terrorists pitting Shite' against Sunni, blowing up sacred Mosques..and on and on...It took a few years to finally get the right general and the right strategy. You know, Lincoln had people in this country calling for his head, demanding that the Union try to seek an armistice with the South...until he found Grant. Obama ran and beat his primary opponents with his anti-war comments as a state senator from a liberal district. Not much downside risk. Hillary voted for the war not because she was a pawn of George Bush, but she saw the intelligence not only from Bush, but also from the eight years in the White House with Bill. Based on how busy Bill was doing other things in the Oval Office, my guess would be that Hillary probably did more homework on the subject than Bill. As you may recall, everyone in the world believed Sadaam had WMD's and would use them...the Untied Nations had over a dozen resolutions against the Iraqi government, a government that had thrown out the UN inspectors. We all know the criticism Bush has received for "Mission Accomplished" but our warriors had accomplished their mission at the time which was to defeat the fourth largest army in the world in fairly short order.
As far as the importance of the stock market, it represents the arteries that carry allow capital formation to exist. Of course its a secondary market, but withhout such a market we would still be a country of mostly small shopkeepers and large privately owned companies like U.S. Steel and Ford. Unfortunately, for me and a lot of other people, once in awhile the market goes bonkers reflecting the impact of bad monetary of fiscal policy or imprudent investment such as people making stupid decisions to trade houses and condo's in Cali, Florida and Nevada, to greedy Investment Bankers packaging these bad mortgages and selling them to institutions looking to enhance their performance with inferior, incorrectly rated paper. The blame list is long for this one. Interestingly, Barack is gaining traction with the worries of people over the market and the economy...two issues he probably would have lost to Hillary if the current circumstance had occured last October instead of this year.
With respect to our lack of ability to respond to Russia in Georgia....in or out of Iraq we could not do much more than what we did...make an immediate political statement as forceful as we could and as McCain did state, while his opponent had to have a barnstorm session,poll his people and than respond. I know you tried to be non-partisan in your essay and I, obviously, try to point out the difference between McCain...Sometimes I feel as if I am between Barack and a hard place....[:)] I wish you and yours well...
|
|
|
|
